User talk:Ealdgyth/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Re Morrell

I replied to your email on 22.02.09 at 22.20 hours, according to my sent mail box. I've just replied again and that's in my sent box, too - are these not reaching you, or is there some emailing trick I'm not aware of that I ought to be doing? I'd love to see the Morrell stuff you've got! Brianboulton (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh. No, the first one did not reach me. Let's give it a few minutes... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Got the stuff, perfectly legible, great! Have replied by email, & thanks again. Brianboulton (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

This is to let you know that the bio details you sent from DAB and ANB were superb. They gave me some new information and, just as important, confirmed other information that I had from less reliable sources. The article will be at PR soon, to be seen in all its glory. Thank you once again. Brianboulton (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Kumi Koda PR

Thank you for looking over the sources.

• About Web Japan the site is sponsored by MOFA Japan. That makes it reliable right?
• Tokyograph actually cites their (Japanese) source and translate the news articles into English. But that doesn't make it reliable does it?
• Nippop's contributes are established people in Japan (I believe). All I know is that Steve McClure is a writer for the Japan Times and he was the one who conducted the interview with Koda.
• I will double-check the non-English sources and tag them as such.

I believe I have address all of the issues you pointed out. But can you answer the questions I left here about Web Japan and Tokyograph? Once again thank you for looking over the sources. ^~Moon~月と日の出 ^~Sunrise~ 03:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the fat reply. ^~Moon~月と日の出 ^~Sunrise~ 03:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer_review/Xgrid/archive1

I have responded to your question. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 08:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Peter of Canterbury

On March 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Peter of Canterbury, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks Victuallers (talk) 10:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

James Nesbitt PR

Hi, thanks for your comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/James Nesbitt/archive1 regarding sources. I presume you used the external links tool to check access dates; the sources that don't have them are newspaper/magazine articles/interviews which have already been published in "hard copy" and thus don't require access dates--it's just convenience links to the respective websites in the refs section. Only web pages that are likely to change or ones that do not have a "hard copy" counterpart (e.g. ref#1) need the access dates. Thanks again! Bradley0110 (talk) 12:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Napoleon

E, thanks for looking at sources before and again. Appreciate it, Tom B (talk) 12:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Settling EveryHit once and for all

Would you consider EveryHit.com reliable, considering BBC references them (UK's Best-selling Movie Themes sidebar)? Dabomb87 (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Preferrably you'd see more than one reference to it. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

That's the woman with a record collection, no? [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's how it started. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I get a lot of it at FLC, so resolving this as either definitely reliable or unreliable would be helpful. I've always been skeptical. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a discussion here. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anstey Hill Recreation Park

Hi Ealdgyth, I've addressed the referencing issues you raised. I would deem it a great favour if you could look and see if I have adequately fixed the items I've marked as Done to your satisfaction. - Peripitus (Talk) 02:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually - I see that you've already struck these - thanks for this. - Peripitus (Talk) 02:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Random question...

I recently came across the article Avener and thought of you for some reason. Would you have any idea if this is a reasonable subject for a stand-alone article, or should it be merged/deleted? Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Depends on how much effort you wanna put into it. Here's the entry for it from Dictionary of Medieval Terms and Phrases p. 26-27 "Avener: The chief officer of the king's stables; the officer in charge of provisioning the king's horses. The Latin term was avenarius. (from the latin avena = oats, straw)."

An avenary was (same reference and p. 26) "The largest department of the king's household, with a staff of between 100 and 200 grooms (note: they are talking about a later medieval establishment here) and valets. Under the charge of the avener, they tended, groomed and fed the horses of the entire household, king, officials, attendants, etc, and also those of visitors. (from the latin avena=oats, straw)" Ealdgyth - Talk 19:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the info. I guess my question was more if you thought it would be a good idea to toss a merge or prod tag on it. Do other positions in the royal household have their own articles, or is there some sort of master list that this could be merged into? What about merging it into something like Stable Master? It doesn't really seem like something that could be developed into anything more than a brief description, but that could just be me and my lack of knowledge of medieval history... Dana boomer (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I haven't really looked, but I think we're looking at a continental title, more than a medieval english title, so it'll be harder to find information on it. One google book search another third one fourth and this book has a brief description of the office. There's probably enough, if you combine the department and the office together. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You're awesome! Thanks so much, and I'll toss this info into the article soon... Dana boomer (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Source reliability

Hello there. Yohhans (talk · contribs) and I were talking about an article that I was helping him about, User:Yohhans/List of United States Academic Decathlon Topics. The United States Academic Decathlon publishes "Resource Guides" yearly on the information that students are required to learn. Our list would write an overview of the topic in each cell, which changes yearly. However, citing this information is very difficult using online sources, as usad.org is wiped periodically and is often incomplete and newspaper archives do not contain the requisite information. I was wondering if we could use the paper resource guides or online DemiDec guides as sources, both of which I have access to (the latter requires a fee). Would those be counted as reliable enough sources?

Regards, NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 05:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Jersey Act

On March 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jersey Act, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 01:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Using a blog's video as a reference?

Heya, I'm wondering if this blog post can be used as a reference. It is the blog of a person who does interviews with people from the video game industry; this particular post contains a video of an interview with a video game voice actor. Is it considered reliable? The person who does the video is the person who runs this blog, so this is as close to the actual source that can be found for this particular interview. Gary King (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I would lean not. You need a reputation for fact checking, etc. etc. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources of limited accessibility

Hi, I noticed your comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/System Shock 2 (in which I have no stake) about one of the sources' requiring a log-in to view. I was just wondering if you could tell me, for my own future reference, why that would be a particular problem? It seems no more problematic than, say, citing a newspaper that doesn't keep online copies of its articles. Many thanks, Steve ^{T • C} 23:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It isn't necessarily unreliable, it just needs to note that in the citation. That's all. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. I went hunting through WP:V and WP:RS after seeing your comment, worried I'd missed something that would require the elimination of several citations from a FAC I'm currently preparing (but which, thankfully, already note the need for registration). Thanks again, Steve ^{T • C} 00:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ba Cut

Fixed it. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 08:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

oldid in Template:GA

I noticed you were using {{GA}} without the oldid parameter. I just started trying to keep Category:Good articles without an oldid empty and wondered if maybe there was reason for this? -- kenb215 talk 14:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm just following the directions at Wikipedia:Good article nominations. I believe there is a bot that comes around and fills out the rest of the information, thus obviating the need for hand updating of the category. Perhaps you might ask on that page to be sure? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It appears there is a bot. I guess I can find something else to do then. -- kenb215 talk 20:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Peter of Aigueblanche

Hello! Your submission of Peter of Aigueblanche at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ∗ \ / (⁂) 00:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Evergreen (album) GAR

Hi, I've made changes to the article as you suggested at the GA review. Thanks, --JD554 (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this wrestling site reliable?

Is F4W Online reliable? This is a website run by Dave Meltzer, who also publishes a newsletter called the "Wrestling Observer Newsletter". Meltzer is a respected and notable wrestling columnist as mentioned in the media and in other publications. I wanted to know whether his site could be an equivalency to Wade Keller's PW Torch, which you found reliable already. IMO it seems as if its good for results, facts, and news that are not rumors or speculation. I would appreciate your input, thanks.--₮RUCӨ 16:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

This is their Copyright and their staff (which is Metlzer himself and his partner). The [http://www.baltimoresun.com/topic/orl-wrestlemania1708feb17,0,410672,full.story Baltimore Sun, this interview by Meltzer himself by Canadian Online Explorer [2], this excerpt from the Los Angeles Times also mentions it, and as does the St. Petersburg times. The Washington Post also mentions him.--₮RUCӨ 19:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello

I believe I have fully addressed your concerns in the GAC review for Economy of the Han Dynasty. Thank you for taking the time to review the article!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Ethanol fuel in Brazil

Thanks for your review, I will work on the improvements you recommended as soon as possible. I really appreciate the time you took since this is such a long article.--Mariordo (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Dominic of Evesham

On March 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dominic of Evesham, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Victuallers (talk) 11:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Billie Jean/archive1

I think I've addressed your concerns regarding the two instances of WP:ALLCAPS on Billie Jean. If you could check it over to make sure I've done the correct thing. Thanks. Pyrrhus16 09:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Got 'em. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) Pyrrhus16 10:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Citation Questions

Hello Ealdgyth, I am part of the AP biology wikipedia project and I was given your name for citation help. I am working on the Brain ischemia article as my part of the project. I was just wondering if there was a way to cite two different places in the article as one source or if you just have to re-cite the source. Your help is greatly appreciated! Thanks! --Saunc2011 (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

S: I think what you are talking about is called "ref naming". I went ahead and changed the Sullivan ref for "Two Flavors of Ischemia" as an example. Notice how now the reference at the bottom has the letters "a" and "b" beside it and how both are now footnote number twelve. You can see how it was done by looking at the article's history or by reading up on it here.

E: Sorry for lurking about on your talk page. Just trying to procrastinate on an English paper and save you some time.--Yohmom (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Quid pro quo, Clarice

Thanks for your review of the Rampart Dam FAC. I've added some comments to your FAC. And on second thought, that's a bit of a creepy allusion if you haven't seen the film. JKBrooks85 (talk) 12:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Peter of Aigueblanche

On March 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Peter of Aigueblanche, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Regenbald

On March 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Regenbald, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Diem in Aus

I've fixed it. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 23:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy Ealdgyth's Day!

Ealdgyth has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Ealdgyth's day! For your awesome article building and reviewing contributions, enjoy being the Star of the day, Ealdgyth! Cheers, bibliomaniac15 00:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:Dashes

Are you sure the script isn't working? It is identical to what I have. You will see a "punctuation" tab to the right of the "watch" tab. It only appears in edit screen mode. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hm.. let me try something. I have a (purge) script that is occupying that space... Ealdgyth - Talk 02:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That got it. Had to whack the citaton bot tool. Ah well... Ealdgyth - Talk 02:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Make sure to void the changes to DOIs, ISBN/ISSNs, URLS, otherwise the links will be broken. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Got it! Oops! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell

I'm thinking about taking the above article to FAC. Unlike most articles I write, it is based entirely on newspapers and websites, since there is next to no academic criticism on the novel (hence my reticence about taking it to FAC in the first place). I have the following questions:

• I have quoted Neil Gaiman's promotional blurb for the book and quoted it from the promotional section of the book (ref 9). Your thoughts on this?

That works fine, can't aruge that Gaiman's a well known figure in the genre, and you've attributed it as opinion to him so good to go. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• This is an interview conducted by published SF fan writer and someone who has been nominated for the Hugo Award. The site also appears to have an editorial staff. This seems reliable to me - your thoughts?

Bearing in mind that I'm reasonably clued into the Sci-fandom world, this one I'd lean not so reliable. Did Locus Magazine do an interview for her? They're VERY good. Here's some from them an interview and a search of their site. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't have access to this magazine. Do you or do you know anyone who does? Awadewit (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't subscribe, I pick it up on an issue by issue basis, and don't have that issue. Ask Mike Christie? If not, you might try emailing them, and asking for a copy of hte interview, since you'll use it for Wikipedia, they might get you a copy for free. (They are very professional, but they aren't ... big big name either. Very helpful folks) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll start with Mike and then move on - thanks for the suggestion. Awadewit (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• This is an interview with a writer for this online site. I am on the fence about this site, as the writers seem to be amateurs. However, as it is an interview, perhaps it is acceptable?

I've leaned pretty hard "not" on this one in the past, no one's yet come up with a good reason for. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll remove the information from that one. Awadewit (talk) 19:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• This site gave me information about one of the awards that the novel has won and it has an editor, but it is hard to tell just how reliable that editor is. The site looks professional, but that way lies madness. :) Your thoughts?

Fence on that one. Check out Locus' 2005 awards list for any you missed. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I added more from Locus. Awadewit (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Further on the original site, it looks like a charity, so it's probably safe. What award exactly are you trying to source? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"Shortlisted for the 2005 British Book Awards Literary Fiction Award" Awadewit (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure looks like the contemporarywriters site is backed by http://www.britishcouncil.org/new/arts/ which looks pretty legit. I lean reliable, but if you wanna be double safe, you can always say "According to the British Council Arts Group, it was..." Bother that http://www.britishbookawards.co.uk/past_winners.asp? doesn't list past shortlists.. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I was annoyed. Awadewit (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• This interview was done by an amateur writer at an unprofessional site. I have tried to find this same information somewhere else and come up empty-handed. Your thoughts on using this site and its information?

I think not, myself. I think I've allowed Cinema Blend reviews through, but not interviews. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I've removed that information. Awadewit (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. Awadewit (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Congrats

Just saw that Hilary of Chichester is now featured! Well done, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I will take a look at it - may take me a few days (as I have to review Wilfrid from the backlog first ;-) ) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Honestly? Wilfrid's fine to wait. I still may have some research on him to do (scary .. isn't it!) but Burnell's probably about ready except for a CE. Feel free to just CE minor stuff as you please, as long as it doens't substantionally change the meaning. With Malleus gone (sniffles) I'm going to have to rely on other folks to massage my prose more! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for John de Breton

On March 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John de Breton, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It Was Written

I fixed the article up.

Dan56 (talk) 20:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Burnell

I have posted my PR comments at the foot of the peer review page. Brianboulton (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Clear

What is unclear? You failed to ask. Or click on links? Or read. WhatisFeelings? (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhatisFeelings? (talk • contribs)

DYK for Gilling Abbey

On March 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gilling Abbey, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congratulations! PeterSymonds (talk) 10:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

James the Deacon

Hi. I was disappointed by this edit. The edit summary you gave, "remove unsourced information" is ridiculous, since the link to the church's own website clearly establishes a source. If you have some other reason for wishing to delete the information, please say what it is. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

One, we don't use inline links to articles to source information. That's not a source, that's just an inline link. Also, what matter does it make if there is a church dedicated to him? It doesn't help us understand his life, does it? For the moment, I've cited the information and will attempt to find something a bit better to source the "chruches dedicated to him are uncommon" bit, because although that site says it's the only church dedicated to him, it's not exactly the most reliable of sources for that information. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think your quibbling about a source for "dedications are not common" is a reductio ad absurdum of WP:RS. I deliberately didn't say "only", which possibly might not be true. Your other point, "what matter does it make if there is a church dedicated to him?" is more arguable, but completely different from your initial reason. Of course it doesn't help us understand his life; nor would his feast-day, which in fact is absent from the article, but it helps to illuminate his present standing (namely very little known) and shows that there is some effort to remember him in an area close to the scene of his ministry. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 00:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It's still there. I am not going to worry about it. Whatever. I'd rather expand the article to give what IS known about it. Obviously, the fact that there is a church dedicated to him is important to someone (you in this case) and I'm not going to bother about it at the moment. I do plan to take the article to GAN at some point (he's part of a featured topic I have in mind on the Gregorian mission) and the information may or may not pass muster at GA as important to the article. Peace, though, I really don't feel like fighting over this. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

OK and thanks. I am prepared to be flexible if it really would affect the article's chances for GA. On a different topic in the same area, I've just noticed the references to Whitby in the Strensall article. Can you cast any light on that? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Synod of Whitby and Whitby Abbey. Both very important in early Anglo-Saxon history (which I'm not an "expert" on by any means) I'm not sure that they've decided exactly where that council took place... Yorke Conversion of Britain p. 12 says "... in the aftermath of the synod of Streanaeshalch (usually identified as Whitby..." The classic info on the synod is Abels, Richard (1983). "The Council of Whitby: A Study in Early Anglo-Saxon Politics". Journal of British Studies. 23 (1): 1–25. doi:10.1086/385808. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I'm familiar with both Strensall and Whitby, which are only about 40 miles apart from each other, but it had never occurred to me that their anglo-saxon names might cause them to be confused with each other. I'll read on. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 01:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Samuel, is the dedication medieval or modern? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The church, you mean? It's modern. CoE. The source is the website for the church (which, helpfully, has one of the feast days on it.) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see much notability in a modern dedication. There's probably a church somewhere in Brazil dedicated to St Columba. Not notable. It'd only be notable as evidence of a near contemporary cult. So I'm agreeing with you here. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I've reworded it a bit, let me know if that's a compromise that works. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Coming back to James the Deacon, the article now has him, as I understand it, staying in Northumbria but with activities centred on Lincoln. But Lincoln, as I understand it, wasn't in Northumbria at all. It's not clear whether he was also meant to be still near Catterick, but Lincoln is about 100 miles south of Catterick. I appreciate that sources may contradict each other, but there needs to be some coherence to the story. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

At the time, Northumbria's borders were much more fluid than most people think. There was an overlordship over the subkingdom of Lindsey, which was around Lincoln. Unfortunately, there jsut isn't much on James. He doesn't even rate a Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article, he's that "low" on the totem pole. If i had to guess, it was that he originally went to Lincoln after Paulinus fled, then slowly worked his way back to Catterick, but that's my interpretation. I have no secondary sources that state that opinion. I don't even have any sources that state when they think he was where. Keep in mind we're talking about a 30 year spread of time here. Edwin dies c 633 and the Council of Whitby is 664. For that matter, if he lived until 671, he was in Northumbria for 40 years, which allows a lot of time to move around. Look at Wilfrid if you want an example of a guy who got around a LOT in a lot shorter time frame than James. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but doesn't at least some of your reply belong in the article? As you say, Lincoln was in the Kingdom of Lindsey. If Northumbria had overlordship over Lindsey at the relevant time, that at least needs to be said. The story seems to imply that Christians were better tolerated in Lindsey than in Northumbria proper. Is there any information on that? Meanwhile I've found references to a book called "The Cross goes North", edited by Martin Carver, which has a paper on Strensall v. Whitby. I intend to get hold of a copy. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh. I have the book. It's in a box somewhere (we just moved, I'm still unpacking.) I'll go hunt. As for the stuff on Lindsey, I could add it in, I suppose. I don't have plans to take James to FAC, though, he's more a "GA and forget" kinda guy. He's still on my list and he's still being worked on as I unearth books. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Papa Don't Preach/archive1

Hi, thank you for your comments on the peer review. About your question of what makes Berger, Arthur Asa (2002). The Art of the Seductress: Techniques of the Great Seductresses from Biblical Times to the Postmodern Era. iUniverse a reliable source.

I don't know if this answer your question. Arthur Asa Berger is a Professor at San Francisco State University and a has published over sixty books, some examples: Pop Culture (Pflaum/Standard), Media Analysis Techniques (SAGE), Popular Culture Genres (SAGE) and Manufacturing Desire: Media, Popular Culture & Everyday Life (Transaction Publishers).

In addition, the section that is sourced by this book is a description of Madonna's live performance during The Blond Ambition Tour: Three years later on her Blond Ambition World Tour, Madonna evoked Catholic images during the "Papa Don't Preach" performance. She wore a black kaftan and energetically danced with an accompaniment of six male dancers, with a platform full of votive candles in the background. This information can be confirmed if you watch a video of her performance: the Blond Ambition - Japan Tour 90 or Live! - Blond Ambition World Tour 90, both performances and two others in Houston and Barcelona are available on youtube.

Do you think this is enough, or is better to remove the reference, maybe I can put the video itself as a reference. Again thanks for your comments. Regards. Frcm1988 (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Generally, self-published sources are not a good idea. If it's just a description of what Madonna wore on the tour, sourcing it to the video (not a YouTube hosting of the video...) should be fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your help. Frcm1988 (talk) 20:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Richard Swinefield

On March 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Richard Swinefield, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congratulations! PeterSymonds (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:Cnut

I will be sure to notify you should any discussion take place. :) Incidentally, while I'm here, can you look at Siward, Earl of Northumbria. Not asking you to copy-edit it or anything, the actual reason I ask is I wanna nom it for FA, and as I haven't nommed an FA in a year, I'm not sure what MoS (+ other minor things I don't care about) expectations have come into existence in this period. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd already planned to look over Siward, I saw you working on him. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Notes left on the talk page. Hopefully my copyediting didn't butcher anything important. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Coward

Thank you so much for your precise pointers in the FA review. At your service if I can ever help by running an eye over anything for you. Tim riley (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

IMDb as a RS

Hi Ealdgyth, Is IMDb a reliable source? My understanding is that it is not, but I can't find a place that says that. If you know of one, could you please point me to the proper place so I could cite it for this Wikipedia:Peer review/Gene Kelly filmography/archive1? Should get started on Burrell tonight. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It's generally considered okay for bare facts about the film, like date of release, etc. Anything beyond that is a no-no. I don't have a quick link to discussions on it but User:Ealdgyth/FAC cheatsheet is usually a helpful place to start if you're looking for other information. Check the archives of WP:RSN? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude, but I happened to see this while surfing. The consensus on this from past discussion is that reliability of IMDb varies depending on what sort of information is in question, but that if in doubt, leave it out. Wikipedia:Citing IMDb is an unstable summation of some of the issues. Regards, Skomorokh 20:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Luckily, it rarely shows up at FAC. I get a lot more trouble from the country/city articles .. those seem to be the big offenders lately. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:Another favor...

Looks fine to me. There are couple of prose tweaks to be made, but the FL should be easily achieved, assuming that there are no comprehensiveness / factual accuracy issues. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and make the tweaks then! I'm not one to stand on ceremony... I know my prose is adequate at best. I don't need fancy colors, etc? (Factual accuracy, you make me laugh... ) Ealdgyth - Talk 03:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks ready from my end, some of my talk page stalkers have picked up on formatting stuff. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

What would we do in the world without talk page stalkers? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Guilty as charged, although I hope it doesn't get as far as a restraining order! Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

James

I've made GA comments for my namesake jimfbleak (talk) 10:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Paulinus of York

Your article has been valeted and is ready to go. I suspect that the lead's two or three sentences too short to get through FAC unscathed, but when did any article get through FAC unscathed anyway? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Gives them something to complain about so I can make changes. (grins) This way I can channel their "energy" into something I'm expecting. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Reliable references for U2 3D

You recently posted on the peer review page for U2 3D regarding the reliability of the various sources. I do agree that http://www.thecancerblog.com/ may have not been reliable, and that has been since replaced. As for the others, I feel as if they are all reliable, and would like to know as to why you disagree. Most of the sources are interviews with the director (Podcast or transcribed form) and therefore I cannot see how a website's interview with an individual significant to the article can be unreliable. Some of the sites are also owned by large media corporations such as Zenbu Media and Penton Media, which also publish many other online and offline sources. None of the sources feature user-submitted content and were all written by a professional who works for that specific website. –Dream out loud (talk) 01:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. A further complication is that interviews are considered a primary source and should be used with caution. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Miller

I've done all the fixes, except the cutting so far. Need to discuss it with the others in the {{Invincibles Advert}} YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 08:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

GAN - George Bethune Adams

I got called to testify before a Senate committee on short notice, and haven't had a chance to tackle this yet. I'll try to get to it later this week; I seem to be the only editor working on the article. THF (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries. If you need more time, let me know and I'll be happy to extend the hold. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for William de Chesney

On March 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William de Chesney, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

midshipman GA review

Are you sure you're doing a third reviewer thing on the GAC of midshipman? Wandalstouring (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how that got there, I never touched that. Might have been an artifact from another review or a glitch from somone else's edit. Removed. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Barnet peer review

Hi Ealdgyth. You might have known of this battle via George Neville, the Archbishop of York, who paraded a miserable looking Henry VI through London, thereby unwittingly sending the ladies and people of the town into the arms of Edward IV. I have greatly expanded the article, and would like your opinions and suggestions on it. The sources used are books, but a fine eye on them is appreciated as well. Post your thoughts at Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of Barnet/archive1. Jappalang (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh boy... my libraries have none of the titles you listed except for Richard III... I did find them on Google Books; hopefully the important parts are not omitted. Furthermore, what is the full title of Wolfe's biography of Henry VI? Jappalang (talk) 02:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, is there a good site to go to for reviews of these historic sources? Jappalang (talk) 02:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It's more "training" than anything. The biographies are all in the "Yale English Monarchs" series, done by historians of the various periods. They are great books to pick up, as they usually cover most of the important bits and pieces of the time. You can usually pick them up remaindered. Wolf's biography is entitled immaginatively enough Henry VI (grins). I'm not saying Weir's a bad writer or even a bad historian, she's just "popular" and isn't considered scholarly. She usually gives a bibliography, and you can mine that for good sources. Seward is less likely to give you sources. Both are good places to start reading, just not necessarily a good place to source things. They tend to be a bit behind the scholarly curve. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Oy, does this mean you'll bite my heels if I use Bill Bryson as a source? :) --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

au contraire, we'd be so pleased to see you using an actual paper publication that all would be forgiven :) Maralia (talk) 02:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh, seems I sparked something here... I forgot to ask you Ealdgyth. Is Hicks a "popular" historian, or is it just his work in Osprey's "Essential Histories" that would be much better replaced? Jappalang (talk) 04:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

IT's the Essential histories part that's the proplem. (I own several, btw). Again, they are great starting spots to find other sources just not the most up to date stuff. If you were writing an overview history of the 1400s, it might work to cite a fact or two from there, but for something this detailed you want something a bit more "current". Ealdgyth - Talk 13:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Only tangentially related to the above (a couple degrees of separation and a slew of print sources, anyhow), but could you do a ref check on Star Trek: The Motion Picture and club me on the talk page if there's anything amiss? --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Well, after the searches on the previews of Google Books yielded possible hits for the information and displayed a "this page not available for preview", I have ordered the books from Amazon.com (should take 1–4 weeks to arrive...). Anyway, I was wondering what is your opinion on Colin Richmond's The Paston Family in the Fifteenth Century, published by Manchester University Press? I am planning to source it for a piece of commentary that rated the battle to be more consequential than the subsequent Battle of Tewkesbury. Jappalang (talk) 12:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Should be a pretty decent source. Published by the Manchester UP, reasonably recent. Keep in mind I'm not a "late medievalist". I'm a "high medievalist", and specifically a Anglo-Normanist (I'm not even sure that's a word!) by training. Because of that, I'm pretty familiar with late Anglo-Saxon and Angevin historians also. Outside those areas, I'm not as familiar with authors as I am in the areas I studied, so I don't know much about Richmond, but you don't get published by Manchester if you're stupid or a bad medievalist. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

RE: List of members of the Gregorian mission

Hi. A short while ago you asked my magic on the table on List of members of the Gregorian mission. Sorry for not getting around to it until now, I’d been a bit unwell. There wasn’t much to do with it other than adding a some colour and aligning the Name and Highest ecclesiastical office obtained columns to the left. I’ve used the same background colour for each person, but changed the top column colour, I didn’t want to use same one with bishop tables. The colour I choose may not appeal, so you could change the Hex triplet code, which can be found on List of colors. Best regards Scrivener-uki (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell, part the second

Locus has just sent me the Clarke interview - thanks for your help on that! In the interview, Clarke lists only one review that made her think about the novel in a new way - this one. I would like to use this in the article, especially since she said it was "incisive". Is it reputable? Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Punctuation correction brought to you by the Apostrophe Demon

Yep, that site's fine. It's the Sci Fi Channel, a cable channel devoted to Science Fiction shows. (You really aren't a geek, huh?) Ealdgyth - Talk 18:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm a geek. My cellphone uses the Star Trek communicator ring tone. :) I just tend to doubt the reliability of TV channels, I guess. I mean, have you seen what is on The History Channel?! Awadewit (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but this is a review ... cite it as the reviewer's opinion and you're good. Can't say the channel isn't important enough to note. Locus, I will admit, is a much better source of information... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Romanus (Bishop of Rochester)

On March 18, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Romanus (Bishop of Rochester), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 05:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Richard of Ilchester

Hope you had a good holiday. Would Richard of Ilchester be within your areas of interest and expertise? There are a couple of "citation needed" tags & I can't find anything to support or disprove the claims. If you had any relevant sources that would be great.— Rod ^talk 19:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

He's pretty far down on my list of folks to work on. Eventaully, I'll get to him. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Zaprešić

Could you please do a full review of Zaprešić, since a week and a half has passed and the only comment beside yours was a technical review by Truco. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 23:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Charles Plummer & Laurence of Canterbury

Hi, Ealdgyth. Here are the gleanings from Plummer's notes to his edition of Bede I mentioned a few days ago. (Due to my schedule, I was unable to share these with you any sooner.)

• You briefly allude to the Libellus responsionum. Plummer (p. 45) mentions that there is a Preface to this document which he considers a forgery. On the same page, he provides some early mentions of this document & after speculating that the original may have existed only at Canterbury states "Bede's copy is the most ancient and authentic in existence, and and the additions to it in other MSS. and editions are of no authority, and some of them are palpable and clumsy forgeries." (Not sure how this applies to this article, but his note might be of use in writing other articles.)
• Plummer (p. 82) provides cites to canon law which explain why Laurence's ordination was irregular. He cites a synod of Pope Hilarius in November 465 which prohibits this, & the refusal of Pope Zacharias in 743 to allow St Boniface to do this. (I almost inserted this material, but it was hard not to make the passage more unreadable so I didn't save the edit.)
• On the same page, Plummer discusses how St Peter relates herein some detail. First, there is the issue that Clement was not by reliable early authorities Peter's successor, but the fourth Pope; the tradition Bede cites "comes ultimately from the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions." Plummer also mentions that Bede quoted the case of Linus & Cletus "to justify Benedict Biscop in appointing Eosterwine and Ceolfrid as abbots respectively of Wearmouth and Jarrow under himself." Plummer thinks Bede was basing these statements from the Liber Pontificalis. (I'm not sure how to fit these bits into the article, but as the article expands they will definitely become useful.)

I believe I shared the best item already: the life by Goscelin & that the Stowe Missal mentions L. Hope these bits prove useful; if not, well, at least they're not clogging up the discussion on the FAC page. -- llywrch (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Plummer published in 1896. Mike Christie and I are working on Bede's article, and the general assesment of most modern scholars is that the letter is genuine. Given Plummer's age, I don't think a mention in Laurence's article about Plummer's belief is that pertient, although I am pretty sure it'll make its way into the Bede series of articles. On the canon law bit, I think the bit I've mentioned is enough to establish that it was irregular, but that opinions are divided. (Gotta love those Victorian scholars who just KNEW what was right (grins)). I guess my main problem with Plummer is that he's over a hundred years old. More modern scholars seem to think that reliance on canon law wasn't as important to the papacy and the church at this point in time. For Laurence the important points are that he was consecrated by his predecessor and that some folks may have felt this was irregular. Plummer seems to be more concerned with what Bede was doing and saying that what actually happened in Laurences time, I'd rather throw this information into the Historia article. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Plummer just because he wrote over 100 years ago -- although the consensus of current expert opinion on the other hand is a good reason. I remember reading an exchange that included Wikipedia's other resident Medievalist -- Adam Bishop -- who commented that authorities that old are frequently relied on in discussions. I assume part of the reason is that so few skilled people are at work in these subject areas -- for some reason, folks just aren't attracted by the pay & status of a medieval scholar -- that new discoveries & insights don't appear with the speed found in other disciplines. -- llywrch (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

PD review

See commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#PD_review. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Noel Coward

Noel Coward has been promoted to FA. Your comments have really helped us improve it. Thanks! All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That and this...

Many thanks for your comments on Áedán, hope to get Fraser's stuff incorporated this weekend. I see that the excellent Cavila has redone Ælfgifu, wife of Eadwig. Lovely! Surely a good article if ever I saw one. I'm minded to review it myself, unless there's someone more capable - who might that be? - who could do so. Just a thought... All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the edit to my user page - who knew I was so popular with vandals? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Jesus College Boat Club (Oxford)/archive1

Thanks for stopping by. I'm slightly worried about this and this; the website is a University of Oxford one (the Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics, as it happens), with the pages being maintained by an academic who also happens to be a rowing enthusiast (Anu Dudhia). I've got no reason to doubt that Dudhia's charts are inaccurate—(s)he says here that they are based on charts in The Times for older races and Oxford University Rowing Club data for more recent ones—but what are your views on this as a reliable source? The alternative is to use multiple college journal references, e.g. 2001 'still in 2nd division', 2002 'still in 2nd division, up 2 places', 2003 'still in 2nd division, down 3 places' etc etc, which could be cumbersome, and/or to put this charts into an "External links" section. Any thoughts gratefully received. Oh, and my bribe is my "support" of the List of members of the Gregorian Mission! Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 17:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably the best bet is to explain the above in the FAC nom. Given the uncontroversial nature of the information, it's not that important that it be sourced to perfection. Another option would be to use the site and back it up with a note that says something like "so-and-so journals from year-X to year-Y show that every year the college was in these brackets" or whatever. This would show that the information is available in less convienent form in very reliable sources. We do something similar with the PA covered bridge articles, where there is a enthusiasts site that has it all nice and easy to see and then those are backed up by the government sites that aren't so easy to deal with. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Great, nice idea. Thanks. Bencherlite^Talk 17:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Your note on the Bruce Castle PR

Although www.revolutionaryplayers.co.uk looks like a fansite constructed in FrontPage, it's a legitimate source; it's a joint effort of a number of institutions (Birmingham Central Library, Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery, Derby Museum and Art Gallery, Erasmus Darwin House, The National Gallery, Wolverhampton Art Gallery, plus a bunch of smaller museums and research facilities) to digitize and centralize their biographical material on 18th and early 19th century people from Mercia and the West Midlands. The odd-sounding "Revolutionary Players" name is due to Birmingham in this period being the focal point of the Industrial Revolution. (In 1830, a newfangled contraption ended the geographical isolation of the cotton mills and foundries of Manchester, and the whole "making the modern world" thing begins.) – iridescent 17:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool! That works. When you go for FAC, just either link to this discussion or copy it over, so that my memory is jogged. (I'm building fence today... I can't guarantee that I'll remember a thing) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Ottawa language PR comments

Thanks for your comments, I amped up the information for each web site citation with retrieval dates, and more reference information about each site.

Also for the 'Ethnologue' web site the information there has appeared in a published book, and I have given complete information for the book in addition to the web site. BTW, Ethnologue is the 'go to' web site for general basic data about languages and dialects (typically gives language family affiliation, demographics, basic references, where spoken, etc). It is mentioned in the Template for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages project.

Thanks again. John Jomeara421 (talk) 18:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Citing circulars

Hey mate! I've been working on GRB 970508. I'd like to cite an IAU Circular (this one), but I'm not sure how. I checked WP:CITET, but there doesn't seem to be any mention of circulars. Any ideas? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Ask over at the Astronomy project? I have no clue. Although it'll be reliable! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Aye, and probably more accessible than a journal article in a subscription database (though I included that too!). I'll go ask the astronomers. If they don't have any ideas, perhaps we should set up a RFC or something to try to establish consensus on this. This certainly won't be the last time someone needs to cite a circular! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

RE:GAN

Cheers for the review! I've responded to the suggestions. Let me know if there's anything else. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Planescape: Torment

Hi! I know that you get a lot of this sort of request, but I was wondering if you could take a look at the references in Planescape: Torment and tell us what you think of them on the talk page. We're hoping to nominate this at FAC soon, and the FA review would probably go a bit better if we didn't need to work on references at the same time as everything else. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C) 14:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C) 18:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I have a question at the peer review page, if you could let us know your opinions on the matter. Thanks again! –Drilnoth (T • C) 19:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

How do you feel about...

the documentary Wild in Corolla? It's about the s on Currituck Banks, and has some new/better facts than some of the other sources used. (The NPS officer who manages the horses on Shackleford and the director of the Corolla Wild Horse Fund have said that it's numbers are more "solid" that what is currently in the article.) I have no doubts about it's facutal accuracy, but I'm not really sure if the fact that it was aired by the University of North Carolina Center for Public Television makes it "reliable" and whatnot. --Yohmom (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for a photo in Clinton, Illinois

Hi. Awadewit suggested that you might live close enough to Clinton, Illinois, to take a specific photo for upload to Commons. I've very recently completed articles for WHOW and WEZC but what they need as a crowning touch is a photo of the "big red barn" (seen here) they call home that I can use in the article. A hook featuring these two articles has been approved for DYK but if a photo can be added fairly quickly then there's a good chance it could be at the top of the list with that photo displayed on the Main Page. Even if it can't be done in the next day or two, a photo of this Central Illinois landmark at any time would be a welcome addition to these radio station articles. Thanks. - Dravecky (talk) 22:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh. I can run out tomorrow and do that. I needed to head to the north end of town anyway, so heading towards Clinton isn't that far of a stretch. Give me til tomorrow afternoon. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You're my new hero. Thanks! - Dravecky (talk) 01:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For taking time out of your life to drive to a remote field and snap a photo of a fake barn just because some random guy in Texas asked you for a favor, you truly deserve this recognition (and a beverage of your choice). Dravecky (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if you noticed it or not but this photo is currently featured on the Main Page at the top of the DYK listing. Thanks again for snapping such a great picture. - Dravecky (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You may be interested to know that the photo was viewed 4300 times while on the Main Page :) Dr pda (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Crack me up. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

List of bishops of Salisbury

I don't have the HBC with me, but it is clear from other sources that the "Salisbury" (i.e. Sherborne) list was missing one Æthelsige (meaning there are two Æthelsiges and the other has to be renamed). I've added him, but only have end dates. I'll leave the rest to you for the mo, unless I get more sources before you're able to fix it. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm moving alphabetically. Just finished up Hereford, starting on Lincoln. Salisbury is a bit away.... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. :) Does the HBC have a from date for old Æthelsige I (so I can add it)? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, you told be to drop you a note if Cnut the Great and Harthacnut became issues. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Took care of Sherborne, the list is now current as of the third edition of the HBC. I'll drop in on Cnut in a bit. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. I found this btw. If I'd found it a few hours ago I wouldn't need to have bugged you! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia

		The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia
		For your participation in the Spring 2009 GAN backlog elimination drive, in which you reviewed 42 articles, you are granted this medal and are inducted into the Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia! Great work! —The participants on the Spring 2009 GAN backlog elimination drive 21:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

In addition, you may use the userbox located at User:Drilnoth/Userboxes/GAN backlog elimination drive to indicate your participation on your user page. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C) 21:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Date autoformatting poll

Hi there, I noticed that like me, you are opposed to any form of dates autoformatting. I have created some userboxes which you might like to add to your userspace to indicate your position. You will find the boxes here. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Good articles

Greetings! I noticed you promoted Battle of Trois-Rivières to a good article. Thanks for reviewing articles for Wikipedia! However, you didn't include an oldid in the template. (This puts it in Category:Good articles without an oldid for other volunteers to clean up later.) I looked through the history and added "oldid=281075560" to it, so no problems, but I just wanted to let you know that if you add oldid when you promote, it can save us some time. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 15:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I followed the instructions on the WP:GAN page to the letter, they don't mention dealing with oldids. (I know they used to require you to do it). I believe that's handled by a bot nowadays. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is indeed done by a bot now. See this diff from one of my own GANs, where the bot comes through and adds the oldid after a while. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Gah! I must have misunderstood the goals of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Uncategorized Good articles elimination drives/Spring 2009. Well, good to know there's a bot to do this, and I'll happily leave it up to a machine more tireless than I. Thanks for letting me know, and I'm sorry to bug you. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 15:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries at all. I will admit I was very glad to leave the days of "add the oldid" behind myself.... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Citation formats

Hi there; I'm hoping you can clarify something for me if you have time. I'm pretty much up to speed on the use of work= and publisher= in the {{cite news}} template, but as you know it can be ambiguous sometimes. For me, that ambiguity exists when the possibilities for publisher and work overlap. For example, when citing something from the MTV website, I've been rendering the citation similar to:

Anne Other (April 1, 2009). "MTV Movie Blog main page". moviesblog.mtv.com. MTV Networks. Retrieved April 1, 2009. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)

Or for a working example:

Staff (October 7, 2008). "Eastwood jokes about VP offer". rte.ie. Radio Telefís Éireann. Retrieved October 27, 2008. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)

Is that the best way of going about it? The work= field seems somewhat redundant in these circumstances, yet it's still necessary to show that these came from a reliable publisher. In the case of the latter, I would hesitate to include Radio Telefís Éireann in the work field. How would you handle it for these? Many thanks, Steve ^{T • C} 22:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Those both work. The work and publisher fields for websites are a lot less important to get right than they are on the newspapers. As a personal preference, I don't like to use the format of the actual web address in the work field, but that's my personal choice and what you've done above is good and probably better than my habit of just using publisher for websites! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy reply! This helps a lot. Cheers, Steve ^{T • C} 22:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Source cheat sheet?

Would you consider putting http://www.zap2it.com/ on your cheatsheet? See the about page, which states that the website's parent is Tribune Media. Tribune's about page states:

"TRIBUNE is America’s largest employee-owned media company, operating businesses in publishing, interactive and broadcasting. In publishing, Tribune’s leading daily newspapers include the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, The Baltimore Sun, Sun Sentinel (South Florida), Orlando Sentinel, Hartford Courant, Morning Call and Daily Press. The company’s broadcasting group operates 23 television stations, WGN America on national cable, Chicago’s WGN-AM and the Chicago Cubs baseball team. Popular news and information websites complement Tribune’s print and broadcast properties and extend the company’s nationwide audience. At Tribune we take what we do seriously and with a great deal of pride. We also value the creative spirit and nurture a corporate culture that doesn’t take itself too seriously…especially on April 1." Dabomb87 (talk) 03:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't usually put ones that are that obvious on the sheet ... zap2it is pretty obvious about it's belonging to Tribune, as I recall. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. What do you think about http://www.promonews.tv (used to cite directors in a discography)? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd lean not reliable. Looks like a personal site at the moment. Surely you can just site the liner notes? There isn't any reason to go to a secondary source for such basic facts, primary sources in those cases are just fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for all your help (if you need my help for anything please shout)! Dabomb87 (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Last one, for a couple things I intend to work on: http://www.hofmag.com/? Here is its about page, and it lists its contributing writers. Thanks! Dabomb87 (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Fence or not reliable, depending on what's sourced to it. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Cuthbert

Actually, now I look at him, Cuthbert could really do with a good clean up if you're still in Bishop Mode. "St. Cuthbert's Co-operative Society opened its first shop in Edinburgh in 1859, and expanded to become one of the largest Co-ops before amalgamating with the Dalziel Society of Motherwell in 1981 and being renamed Scotmid. Its dairy used horse drawn delivery floats until 1985, and between 1944 and 1959 employed as a milkman one Sean Connery, who later went on to fame as James Bond." is a paragraph I can't imagine Britannica including. – iridescent 22:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The main reason I've not messed with Cuthbert (nor with Becket) is the sheer volume of stuff I'd need to assimilate in order to do the article justice. Wilfrid was bad enough, I don't need to tackle the "Big boys" until later. I have a little list of folks I don't wanna mess with until later. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Adam de Stratton

Thanks for your review, I've tried to fix the things you mention, care to have another look? Lampman (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Done! Grats! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thermal low

Let me know if anything is left to be fixed. I think I responded to the comments within your review appropriately. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, I've passed it! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Forti

Thank you for your peer review of the Forti article! You actually raised an addition point which I hadn't considered before: the final four sources you questioned were from two books cited in the "Books" section of the article, but this may not be obvious from the way the relevant footnotes are formatted. I was wondering if there is a preferred way of citing this type of source, i.e. a distinct article within a book that is already fully referenced elsewhere.--Diniz(talk) 19:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

You mean it is a book of collected articles by different authors? If that's the case, I find {{cite encyclopedia}} helpful. Use the encyclopedia field for the overall title of the book, and the title field for the title of the article in the book. Editor is the editor of the whole book, with author the author of the individual article. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!--Diniz(talk) 23:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I like cite encyclopedia rather than {{cite conference}} because encyc lets you put in an isbn, which is handy for FAC. Conference doesn't. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but 4u1e has given the opinion that the current cite encyclopedia reference formatting includes information that isn't needed, and that only the editor, year and page number would be required in a footnote, as the full details of the books in question are already given in the section below. For example,

"Constanduros, Bob (1995). "1995 Grands Prix: Belgian Grand Prix". In Henry, Alan (ed.). AUTOCOURSE 1995-96. Hazleton Publishing Ltd. p. 177. ISBN 1-874557-36-5. {{cite encyclopedia}}: More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)"

is fine as just

"Henry (ed.) (1995), p. 177".

Is this the case, or is it preferable to have to fuller citation (or does it not particularly matter, providing that the article is internally consistent)?--Diniz(talk) 19:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hygeberht

Hi there. GA review undertaken. Ping me if you've any questions. Regards - hamiltonstone (talk) 03:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Nancy Cartwright

Hello, do you think this would be a suitable replacement source for the dead Wish Foundation link? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Is the Make A Wish info not available at all on their site? Sometimes the information just gets reshuffled... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be, I did a google search of the site. The problem is that a lot these sites delete their old news article, so they aren't the best sources to link to. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I take that back, I searched the wrong site. Sorry for wasting your time. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries at all! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Ealdgyth - wife of Morcar (grin)

See here. I think we have a DYK proposal based on Weston being 1000 years old this year! Thanks so much for your and DofP's work. I have added a bit and I was hoping you might check if it is ok and maybe add a bit as its only just big enough. Thanks again Victuallers (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Back

Yep! I'm slowly getting myself back into the swing of things. Seeing as I've gone over two months without an FAC, I think you got a shot at you all catching up to me :) ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No easy questions for you

Never an easy question for you. Yay!

I am rewriting Rosewood massacre. In it is a source to Rosewood Victims v. State of Florida, a lawsuit brought against the State of Florida on behalf of the survivors and their descendants. The link I gave you I might toss out quickly for being a stinky source. Take away the roswood2.html and it's a site for jewelry or something. Who knows? So I want to get the original lawsuit, as any dutiful FA writer would. So I contact the Florida Archives by chat, since I have problems with delayed gratification.

They don't have the original document, but, lo and behold, there is a JSTOR document titled "Getting to Reparations: Japanese Americans and African Americans" by Rhoda E. Howard-Hassmann that cites the afgen.com website as a source. My final alternative, I suppose, is going to the law library and trying to find the document that way.

What say you on if this will be acceptable in its state right now, and if so, how shall it be cited? Your assistance, is as ever, invaluable. --Moni3 (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The afgen site I would toss, it's not looking so reliable, honestly. Try the law library. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I do not like your answer. Shake the Magic 8-Ball again, please... --Moni3 (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. But it comes up the same this time... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I found it again in an article in a legal journal published in Seattle... --Moni3 (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

As luck would have it .. I'm about to head off to the University of Illinois' library. Do you need me to dig that article out for you? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Knee surgery has grounded me and left me unable to drive, dangit. I wrote to the UF law library today asking for assistance, but no luck as yet. If you find it in Illinois, that that would be swell. Otherwise, I'll go to the UF law library when I can. --Moni3 (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You have the exact citation? It'd make my life easier (I have a HUGE pile of stuff of my own to look up)... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Only the title and year: Rosewood Victims v. State of Florida in 1993. Was a lawsuit filed against the State of Florida. Do all your stuff first. If you don't get to it, I'll live. Somehow. --Moni3 (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Oda the Severe

Hi Ealdgyth, since you have done most to improve the article, it probably makes most sense if I put it to you first. I'm having some doubts about the subject's article name. "Oda" is usually preferred to "Odo", but the nickname "Severus" or "the Severe" is hardly ever used today to identify him. I suppose that leaves "Oda the Good" or "Oda, Archbishop of Canterbury". Which do you prefer? Cavila (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

HBC has "Oda" plain so probably "Oda (Archbishop of Canterbury)" works best with the naming conventions. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk Page Stalkers Alert

Just a note to ya'll. I'll be at the U of I library today and then again Monday doing journal research. If you need something obscure, get me the citations here and I'll try to get them. U of I's got a HUGE collection, and they've been around a while, so they have some strange stuff tucked away in their stacks. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

.... you can't get an image of the 1009 Aethelred charter can you? Victuallers (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll look on Monday. Today was only two hours of pounding on the journal databases. Monday will be close to seven hours and I'll have time to request books from the stacks. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism

Ealdgyth, thanks for your helpful comments on this FAC. I just want to ask you about the navigation template. Is this something we can eliminate from the page? I did not add this to the article, it was placed there by someone else. What do you recommend? NancyHeise ^talk 02:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, I have made the appropriate corrections to the article per your comments at FAC except for the comment about the template. I will correct that after I hear from you. Thanks! NancyHeise ^talk 04:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Gregorian mission FT nom

This doesn't seem set up right - it doesn't appear in the TOC, & is impossible to comment on. Glad to see you're using the Greg/Augustine pic! I have expanded St Augustine Gospels recently, which seems of GA standard to me, although I never put them forward, and an obvious member of the topic. Johnbod (talk) 13:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I've fixed it... try it now? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Shimizu S-Pulse GAN

Just a quick message to give huge thanks for the time and effort you clearly spent on reviewing the article for Shimizu S-Pulse. All the points you made are extremely constructive and even if the article doesn't make the grade this time round (alas, real life keeps getting in the way!) all your feedback will go towards getting it up to grade in time. Thanks again. --Lets Enjoy Life (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)